Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo

[William Kenworthy]

On 19/08/13 22:20, Alecks Gates wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote:
>>
...
>
> Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated
> about making an initramfs?  At this point in time it's extremely
> simple for me, but I only manage relatively simple systems (although
> I'd like that to change soon).  All I do is add one extra line (for
> example - "dracut -H --kver=3.11.0-rc6") to my kernel install
> procedure.
>
> Granted, the only reason I have an initramfs is for the plymouth
> splash screen (other systems aren't desktops) -- but from everything I
> can see it's not too complicated otherwise.
>

Ive had one employment threatening episode when a redhat system using
initramfs wouldnt boot (my fault in fact, I got out of sync with
initramfs/kernel version on the install) and it was an important server.
 Since then I eliminated them and surprise never had a failure until
recently when I started using genkernel.  So now I have mostly systems
using initramfs, 3 customised, one of which will no longer hibernate to
disk and I am suspecting the initrd.

Its fine when it all works, but the question in this case is how many
times do I want to crash the system trying to fault-find it?  Its not
that it doesn't work, or that its generally reliable but that its an
unwanted/unneeded extra point of failure built around an extra workload.
 Distros like Redhat have specialists that do that, we dont and we are
NOT competing in Redhats market space so "why"?

I actually think working towards a read-only /usr is a good idea and am
ambivalent about it being in the root, its the baggage thats being
worked in alongside this thats the problem for me.

BillK